Drum: More Money For Research Into Race And IQ
...because his"read of the evidence so far is that racial IQ differences are very unlikely to be biologically based..."
Whatever evidence he's reading must be selective if it entails that such differences are "very unlikely" to be biological. I understand wanting to believe that. And it seems to me that it's still reasonable to hope that the differences aren't genetic. But I don't see that they're "very unlikely" to be.
By all means, do more research and find out for sure. But, as I've long said, it's (a) better and truer to acknowledge right now that it's not unlikely that average intelligence varies across groups, and (b) more intelligence doesn't mean more moral worth. You're not a worse person than Stephen Hawking. Well...you probably are...but people in general aren't. That is: they aren't less worthy qua humans than Hawking merely because his IQ was higher.
I expect what the usual suspects will do is: continue to deny the evidence and vilify anyone who doesn't deny it...and continue to argue for related kooky auxiliary propositions like IQ isn't a good measure of intelligence, and race is socially constructed. Continue all that, anyway, until the evidence makes those positions entirely untenable...whereupon they'll have no choice but to, as a last resort, fall back to the true and relevant position: moral worth doesn't vary with intelligence.
Actually, even that position has no place in the discussion, really. This is a question of fact, and should be treated as such. Moral--and especially political--considerations need to be banned from such discussions. Even if more intelligence did make you a better person (and there's a wildly counterfactual counterfactual for you), that wouldn't mean we shouldn't research questions about natural differences between groups.
Whatever evidence he's reading must be selective if it entails that such differences are "very unlikely" to be biological. I understand wanting to believe that. And it seems to me that it's still reasonable to hope that the differences aren't genetic. But I don't see that they're "very unlikely" to be.
By all means, do more research and find out for sure. But, as I've long said, it's (a) better and truer to acknowledge right now that it's not unlikely that average intelligence varies across groups, and (b) more intelligence doesn't mean more moral worth. You're not a worse person than Stephen Hawking. Well...you probably are...but people in general aren't. That is: they aren't less worthy qua humans than Hawking merely because his IQ was higher.
I expect what the usual suspects will do is: continue to deny the evidence and vilify anyone who doesn't deny it...and continue to argue for related kooky auxiliary propositions like IQ isn't a good measure of intelligence, and race is socially constructed. Continue all that, anyway, until the evidence makes those positions entirely untenable...whereupon they'll have no choice but to, as a last resort, fall back to the true and relevant position: moral worth doesn't vary with intelligence.
Actually, even that position has no place in the discussion, really. This is a question of fact, and should be treated as such. Moral--and especially political--considerations need to be banned from such discussions. Even if more intelligence did make you a better person (and there's a wildly counterfactual counterfactual for you), that wouldn't mean we shouldn't research questions about natural differences between groups.
posted by Winston Smith at
6:00 PM
4 Comments:
Also: Hawkins was a douchebag.
Dude! Control your autocorrect!
No! I said it and I meant it!
I don't think it's crazy to think average intelligence varies across groups. But as to what explains it, I'm less convinced we can separate culture and biology enough to adequately answer the question.
As for the other stuff, in terms of my personal experience--an admittedly small sample size--some of the worst folks I've known have been the most intelligent. As for another tiny, if fascinating sample, all the Nuremberg defendants had above average IQs, and many by quite a margin. [Of course, that doesn't mean stupid people can't be awful, too: our stable genius in chief being an all too readily available example.]
As for Hawking, he was great at what he did and was obviously inspirational in lots of ways. But even accounting for my bias, his views about philosophy alone will forever keep me from thinking about him as a genius of the highest order, e.g. your Aristotles, your Newtons, your Leibnizs, your Peirces, your Planks and Einsteins, your Whiteheads, etc.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home